G.R. No. 50147 - Ansaldo vs. Tantuico, Jr.

The petitioners, Jose Ma. Ansaldo and Maria Angela Ansaldo, owned two lots with a total area of 1,041 square meters, covered by title No. 4884 registered in Rizal.
These lots were taken by the Government in 1947 through the Department of Public Works, Transportation and Communication without an eminent domain proceeding or agreement, and used for the widening of what was then Sta. Mesa Street (now Ramon Magsaysay Avenue) in San Juan, Metro Manila.
The owners did not protest the taking and remained silent for more than two decades.

On January 22, 1973, the Ansaldos wrote to the government requesting compensation for their expropriated land.
The claim was referred to the Secretary of Justice, who, on February 22, 1973, advised that just compensation should be paid in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 76 (PD 76).
PD 76 prescribed that just compensation should be based on the lower of either (a) the value declared by the owner or administrator, or (b) the market value as determined by the assessor.
The Secretary of Justice recommended filing an expropriation suit to fix just compensation.
The Commissioner of Public Highways requested the Provincial Assessor of Rizal to re-determine the market value pursuant to PD 76. A new appraisal was made.
The Auditor of the Bureau of Public Highways forwarded the claim to the Auditor General recommending payment of just compensation based on the current market value, not the value at the time of taking.

COA, through its Acting Chairman, ruled on September 26, 1973, that compensation should be based on the property value at the time of taking in 1947.
COA reaffirmed this ruling on September 8, 1978, and January 25, 1979, denying Ansaldos’ motion for reconsideration.
The Ansaldos appealed to the Supreme Court.

PD 76 and related decrees had been declared unconstitutional in 1988 (Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay) because the administrative mode of determining just compensation encroached on the judiciary’s prerogative.
The Government’s exercise of eminent domain was not questioned, nor was the public purpose.
The fundamental question concerned the timing for fixing just compensation: at the time of actual possession or only after expropriation proceedings and transfer of title.
Rule 67, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court requires just compensation to be fixed at the time of filing the complaint when possession coincides with or follows the beginning of the expropriation proceedings.
The case was unusual because possession was taken more than 40 years before any expropriation suit was instituted.

Whether or not just compensation for expropriated property should be based on the value at the time of taking possession by the Government or at the time of filing the expropriation complaint.
Whether the Government’s taking without formal expropriation proceedings and delayed compensation claim affects the constitutional requirements of just compensation and due process.
The applicability of PD 76 and related decrees in determining just compensation after their invalidation in Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay.